I Like Guns

[The Rabbi]

Not only are you claiming we do not have the right to keep an imaginary weapon, there is no 7.67 Galil, but the Constitution is clear that we have the right to keep military type weapons in order for the militia to furnish their own firearms if and when called upon.

The constitution does not mention - and clearly could not - weapons which did not exist at the time the constitution was written.

I think one has to step back a little from regarding the constitution as some divine work of God, and accept that issues such as the internet and 9 mm Uzi weapons need to be viewed according the the spirit of the constitution - not according to the letter.

Galil also make a 7.62 (sorry, it was typing error before) that was used a lot in Israel during my time there.

The Constitution does not mention newspapers. It does not mention television. It does not mention lots of things that nontheless are included in its protections.
I agree these things need to be viewed in the spirit of the Constitution. And that spirit was to empower the citizens of this country, not reduce them to serfdom.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Not only are you claiming we do not have the right to keep an imaginary weapon, there is no 7.67 Galil, but the Constitution is clear that we have the right to keep military type weapons in order for the militia to furnish their own firearms if and when called upon.

The constitution does not mention - and clearly could not - weapons which did not exist at the time the constitution was written.

I think one has to step back a little from regarding the constitution as some divine work of God, and accept that issues such as the internet and 9 mm Uzi weapons need to be viewed according the the spirit of the constitution - not according to the letter.

Galil also make a 7.62 (sorry, it was typing error before) that was used a lot in Israel during my time there.

Again, for the third time, why the hell are you talking about uzis?

It doesn't matter if the Constitution is a divine work of God or not, it is the law of the land and is to be upheld.

 

[Citizen]

Not only are you claiming we do not have the right to keep an imaginary weapon, there is no 7.67 Galil, but the Constitution is clear that we have the right to keep military type weapons in order for the militia to furnish their own firearms if and when called upon.

The constitution does not mention - and clearly could not - weapons which did not exist at the time the constitution was written.

I think one has to step back a little from regarding the constitution as some divine work of God, and accept that issues such as the internet and 9 mm Uzi weapons need to be viewed according the the spirit of the constitution - not according to the letter.

Galil also make a 7.62 (sorry, it was typing error before) that was used a lot in Israel during my time there.

Although you might not know it, at the time our Constitution was adopted, the private citizen or militia, was better armed than the military.

While the military had to rely on smooth bore muskets, with questionable accuracy, the frontiersman carried a rifle capable of hitting a man's head at up to 200 yards.

The only drawback to the long rifle, from a military standpoint, was that it could not be fitted with a bayonet, but since it could kill at two to three times the distance of the musket, those that carried them did not rely on a bayonet, and most had a tomahawk as a back up weapon.

In other words, at the time our constitution was adopted, the Founding Fathers knew that the citizens were armed as well or better than the military, and found no fault with that fact, so in keeping with that intent, we should be able to keep and bear any arm the average soldier carries.

 

[Sodafin]

Again, for the third time, why the hell are you talking about uzis?

.

Because they are an example of the kind of weapon that I think has no role in a safe and civilised society.

If you don't like the example, I'd be happy to use AK-47 or an M-16 instead.

I don't believe I suggested the Constitution should NOT be upheld - what I said was that any legal document requires amendments to take into account new concepts such as the internet - and I believe the existence of weapons such as the AK-47 is such a new concept.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, for the third time, why the hell are you talking about uzis?

.

Because they are an example of the kind of weapon that I think has no role in a safe and civilised society.

If you don't like the example, I'd be happy to use AK-47 or an M-16 instead.

I don't believe I suggested the Constitution should NOT be upheld - what I said was that any legal document requires amendments to take into account new concepts such as the internet - and I believe the existence of weapons such as the AK-47 is such a new concept.

Fortunately the Supreme Court disagrees with you. And I have never seen a proposed amendment on the internet or AK-47s.

 

[Citizen]

Again, for the third time, why the hell are you talking about uzis?

.

Because they are an example of the kind of weapon that I think has no role in a safe and civilised society.

If you don't like the example, I'd be happy to use AK-47 or an M-16 instead.

I don't believe I suggested the Constitution should NOT be upheld - what I said was that any legal document requires amendments to take into account new concepts such as the internet - and I believe the existence of weapons such as the AK-47 is such a new concept.

Maybe you just do not understand what a real AK-47, or M-16 really is, because they are capable of fully automatic fire, and all fully automatic weapons are required to be registered with the BARF and a license and transfer tax are required.

Also, if memory serves, legally owned fully automatic weapons have posed no danger to the American public for decades.

In closing, I would remind you that when our Constitution was adopted the private citizen already owned firearms superior to those used by the military, and the Founding Fathers had no problem with that fact then, and we should not have any problems with any firearms citizens now own.

 

[Missourian]

Again, for the third time, why the hell are you talking about uzis?

.

Because they are an example of the kind of weapon that I think has no role in a safe and civilised society.

If you don't like the example, I'd be happy to use AK-47 or an M-16 instead.

I don't believe I suggested the Constitution should NOT be upheld - what I said was that any legal document requires amendments to take into account new concepts such as the internet - and I believe the existence of weapons such as the AK-47 is such a new concept.

Uzis, AK-47s and M-16 ownership is already highly regulated in the U.S.

You may only purchase an automatic weapon after passing a BATF background check, submit fingerprints and photo, procure a letter from your County (or Parrish) Sheriff and acquire a federal tax stamp.

Civilian versions of these weapons are no different in their operation than semi-automatic hunting rifles and pistols.

[youtube]YjM9fcEzSJ0[/youtube]​

Share it with others.​

Copy and paste this link:​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0​

 

[Sodafin]

Maybe you just do not understand what a real AK-47, or M-16 really is, because they are capable of fully automatic fire, and all fully automatic weapons are required to be registered with the BARF and a license and transfer tax are required.
.

Yes, sure - but that does not mean there are not AK-47s in the USA, and being used in crime. Many may be being bought and sold illegally, others not.

While the guns on this site presumably do US legal requirements - when pointed at someone it is difficult for them to establish that. They are a very threatening weapon.

AK-47 Manufacturers & Builders

We are talking about an example here - it is not that I believe the entire crisis of gun violence begins and ends with Uzis or AK's - they are the tip of the iceberg, but are also an example that I think most people understand the danger of.

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe you just do not understand what a real AK-47, or M-16 really is, because they are capable of fully automatic fire, and all fully automatic weapons are required to be registered with the BARF and a license and transfer tax are required.
.

Yes, sure - but that does not mean there are not AK-47s in the USA, and being used in crime. Many may be being bought and sold illegally, others not.

While the guns on this site presumably do US legal requirements - when pointed at someone it is difficult for them to establish that. They are a very threatening weapon.

AK-47 Manufacturers & Builders

We are talking about an example here - it is not that I believe the entire crisis of gun violence begins and ends with Uzis or AK's - they are the tip of the iceberg, but are also an example that I think most people understand the danger of.

What law would you suggest passing to deal with the problem of illegal buying and selling of AKs?
In fact they are not much used in crimes. This has been proven numerous times. The most common weapon used in a crime is a cheap handgun in the 9mm or .38 variety.

 

[Missourian]

Maybe you just do not understand what a real AK-47, or M-16 really is, because they are capable of fully automatic fire, and all fully automatic weapons are required to be registered with the BARF and a license and transfer tax are required.
.

Yes, sure - but that does not mean there are not AK-47s in the USA, and being used in crime. Many may be being bought and sold illegally, others not.

While the guns on this site presumably do US legal requirements - when pointed at someone it is difficult for them to establish that. They are a very threatening weapon.

AK-47 Manufacturers & Builders

We are talking about an example here - it is not that I believe the entire crisis of gun violence begins and ends with Uzis or AK's - they are the tip of the iceberg, but are also an example that I think most people understand the danger of.

I own an AR15, the semi-automatic version of the M-16.

I own it mostly because it was my primary weapon when I was in the service, it's modular, easy to maintain and reliable.

I also own it BECAUSE it is threatening. If I have to point it at someone, I want them to be threatened....because I don't want to be forced to shoot them.

The threatening nature of the weapon works to the advantage of lawful firearm owner who wishes to resolve a situation without lose of life.

 

[Citizen]

Maybe you just do not understand what a real AK-47, or M-16 really is, because they are capable of fully automatic fire, and all fully automatic weapons are required to be registered with the BARF and a license and transfer tax are required.
.

Yes, sure - but that does not mean there are not AK-47s in the USA, and being used in crime. Many may be being bought and sold illegally, others not.

While the guns on this site presumably do US legal requirements - when pointed at someone it is difficult for them to establish that. They are a very threatening weapon.

AK-47 Manufacturers & Builders

We are talking about an example here - it is not that I believe the entire crisis of gun violence begins and ends with Uzis or AK's - they are the tip of the iceberg, but are also an example that I think most people understand the danger of.

I own an AR15, the semi-automatic version of the M-16.

I own it mostly because it was my primary weapon when I was in the service, it's modular, easy to maintain and reliable.

I also own it BECAUSE it is threatening. If I have to point it at someone, I want them to be threatened....because I don't want to be forced to shoot them.

The threatening nature of the weapon works to the advantage of lawful firearm owner who wishes to resolve a situation without lose of life.

I applaud your restraint, but I was taught from a young age never to point a firearm at anyone, unless I intended to shoot, and if I shot to shoot three times at center of mass, but I have had to modify that idea to two shots at center of mass and one to the head because of the increasing use of body armor.

 

[The Rabbi]

The magic phrase is "unless you intend to shoot." Just pointing one at someone doesn't obligate you to pull the trigger. If the person gets the idea and makes tracks the other direction, so much the better.
I'll mention that a Marlin 30-30 is a heck of a lot more devastating than any AR. And it's just an old deer rifle.

 

[Citizen]

The magic phrase is "unless you intend to shoot." Just pointing one at someone doesn't obligate you to pull the trigger. If the person gets the idea and makes tracks the other direction, so much the better.
I'll mention that a Marlin 30-30 is a heck of a lot more devastating than any AR. And it's just an old deer rifle.

The point being that if the situation has gotten to the point that pointing a forearm is necessary, pulling the trigger should be almost instantaneous.

A also agree that a 30-30 is much more devastation than any 7.62x49 ever hoped to be, and I used to shoot an old 30-30 in competition and it had no problem knocking down the rams at 200 meters.

 

[Citizen]

The magic phrase is "unless you intend to shoot." Just pointing one at someone doesn't obligate you to pull the trigger. If the person gets the idea and makes tracks the other direction, so much the better.
I'll mention that a Marlin 30-30 is a heck of a lot more devastating than any AR. And it's just an old deer rifle.

The point being that if the situation has gotten to the point that pointing a firearm is necessary, pulling the trigger should be almost instantaneous.

A also agree that a 30-30 is much more devastation than any 7.62x49 ever hoped to be, and I used to shoot an old 30-30 in competition and it had no problem knocking down the rams at 200 meters.

 

[The Rabbi]

Might be. But every situation is different. And if producing the firearm makes the bad guy reconsider his future then shooting him will be a very bad idea indeed.

The 30-30 would make an ideal patrol rifle. It is inoffensive in court and there isn't a vehicle or Level 3 vest that can't be defeated with one.

 

[keee keee]

The magic phrase is "unless you intend to shoot." Just pointing one at someone doesn't obligate you to pull the trigger. If the person gets the idea and makes tracks the other direction, so much the better.
I'll mention that a Marlin 30-30 is a heck of a lot more devastating than any AR. And it's just an old deer rifle.

you never point a gun at anything you are not about to shoot. If you point a gun at someone be prepaired to die yourself, because you are telling that person you are going to kill them, they will intern fight for their life maybe killing you trying to save their life!!!! I would rather shoot targets or hunt deer, but am willing and able to protect myself if and when needed!!!